Adam Lanza’s Dead Soul

Whatever the root causes of the Newtown tragedy, gun control won't fix them.

“No set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.”

So said President Obama in words of comfort in Newtown. The president was right to speak of evil, but mistaken when he called the massacre “senseless.”

For this was a premeditated and purposeful act of mass murder, and the devil that did it knew exactly what he was doing and why.

When he put four bullets into his mother’s head while she lay in bed, Adam Lanza wanted her life ended along with his. When he headed for Sandy Hook Elementary, with the Glocks and Bushmaster rifle, he knew he would encounter no armed resistance.

Before he went into that school to shoot 20, 30 or 40 children, barely more than babies, he knew his slaughter would be so stomach-turning and heart-wrenching that the TV crews would come running.

And by day’s end, the world would know who Adam Lanza was.

Lanza kept firing at the children until he heard the sirens.

Then he pulled out one of the Glocks, put it to his head and ended it, knowing he was on his way to becoming world famous.

Just as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine are famous.

Just as James Holmes, the “Joker” of the Aurora “Dark Knight Rising” massacre, is famous. Just as Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson mass murderer who shot Gabby Giffords, is famous.

A desire to be famous coupled with a dead conscience is the common thread running through these recurring atrocities. These loners and losers want us to know who they are. And, to succeed now, each almost has to outdo in horror those who went before.

Since the news first came in Friday from Newtown, we have argued about guns in America and mental illness, but heard little about the moral sickness of our society.

Americans have always owned guns. But in Prohibition, when gangsters like John Dillinger, “Machine Gun” Kelly and “Baby Face” Nelson were notorious, the most remembered atrocity was the “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” Al Capone’s gang executed seven of Bugs Moran’s gang in a Chicago garage.

Yet, just two years ago, when one Washington, D.C., drive-by shooting ended with four dead on a sidewalk and five wounded, it was just local news.

Why are these atrocities growing more frequent and deadly?

We are told that it is because the guns used–especially assault rifles like Russian-made AK-47s and civilian copies of the M-16 used in Vietnam, like the Bushmaster–are all too available.

But the guns used in the Sandy Hook massacre were legally purchased by Lanza’s mother, and she and Adam lived in a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

And the Bushmaster is not a machine gun but a semi-automatic, as are the 100-year-old Colt .45 and M-1 rifle used by GIs in World War II. Fully automatic weapons like the Thompson submachine gun cannot be purchased without a federal license. No fully automatic weapon has been used in any of these massacres.

Will ending all sales and transfers of assault rifles and limiting the rounds in clips and magazines reduce these massacres in malls, movie theaters and schools? Did it succeed when the assault weapons ban was in force in the Clinton years?

If assault rifles are evil things that ought not be in the hands of decent Americans, why do “shoot-to-kill” video games feature these weapons?

Few of America’s young have seen an assault weapon fired outside the military. Scores of millions have seen them fired on TV. Many of our movies are advertisements for the efficiency of assault weapons in the hands of good guys doing heroic deeds.

Are the folks who think America would be a better place with a more restrictive Second Amendment willing to restrict the First Amendment to stop all distribution of movies and cable shows that depict famous actors blasting enemies with assault weapons?

Not long ago, there existed in our hearts “a fear of God.”

How, we would ask ourselves, if we commit an evil act like murder, will we answer at God’s judgment seat? For He will decide if we enter what the president called in Newtown, God’s “eternal house in heaven.”

But if God is dead, not to worry. Just put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, and it’s over. No trial. No disgrace. No prison. Nothing to worry about anymore.

No voice of conscience told Adam: Do not do this evil thing!

Now he is no longer a nobody, a nerd, a recluse. He is famous.

Everybody is talking about him, and ruminating on what might have motivated him.

My instincts are to agree with you. American culture has become shallow, attention-seeking, and violent, and in my observation a peaceful town is based less on law than on individual restraint.

Whether my neighbor chooses not to shoot me out of fear that God will punish him or out of some secular impulse, I don’t really care which.

If you’re correct, faith correlates with low rates of killing. I’ve looked at the locations of past mass killings along with average rates of church-attendance in the US and hoped you were right. Unfortunately, I can’t see a pattern that supports your hypothesis. Meanwhile, countries with gun control laws do have much lower rates of murder.

I support the Second Amendment and own a gun, but I believe a conversation about gun control should start with facts.

Wow, how is it that you know exactly what was going on in Adam’s mind? I’ m reading that his mother took him to shooting ranges to teach him how to defend himself in case the economy collapses and society breaks down.

I don’t know how much truth there are to those rumors. Maybe he thought he was saving his mother and those children. I suppose I should wait to learn more as the facts present themselves to determine why he did what he did. The truth is that we may never know his reasons and most of us will never understand even if presented with his reasoning.

Do you have knowledge or evidence that Adam was a copycat killer with visions of going out in a blaze of glory?

No offense, but as an atheist who believes that anyone’s time on earth is measured by the good they do, it strikes me that religion in the broader sense is more often the basis for aggression against the “others” who believe differently. All religions included–
A personal morality that prevents acts of hatred and violence may be the ideal of a sabbath sermon, but the greater immorality of the “we are good and they are bad (and need to be converted–or exterminated)” is, along with other forms of tribalism and greed, at the center of conflict around the world.
The symptoms described in the opinion more closely resemble what was seen in Skinner’s rat box–and throw in a large rat to complete the allusion–than they serve as a cause for some wishful return to belief. I doubt the folks guiding the drones in our ever more religious military are worried about the hereafter and any moral judgment they may face.

FN, while I understand your argument, I think it would be clearer to use an apples-to-apples comparison. Your comparison does not adjust for two major factors: (1) the population of the UK is smaller and (2) our concern should not be so much the type of weapon used, but the overall murder rate. (This is to adjust for the “criminals will find some way to kill their victims” argument.)

Ok, this those factors adjusted, the UK has 1.2 murders per 100,000 per year, and the US has 4.2 murders per 100,000 per year.

But other nations have lower murder rates, but not as high gun control laws, than the UK–such as Switzerland (0.7 murders per 100,000), or lower rates of Christian worship than the US (Pat’s argument), such as Saudi Arabia and Sweden (both at 1.0).

There are no simple factors, either religiously or gun control…but both might help.

What problem are we trying to solve? Mass shootings like Newtown or Columbine? or gun-related homicides in general?

Personally, I say we go for addressing both, but the solutions are different for each problem, and involve complex public policy initiatives involving mental health, school safety, and yes…restricting the way guns are bought and sold. I have no interest in eliminating any law abiding citizen’s right to own a handgun or a long gun for hunting or self-defense, but we have to try to control criminals and mentally ill people from having access to guns.

Other countries that we respect and admire accomplish this goal, why can’t the USA?

If I was in charge of NRA, I would be leading the charge to get this accomplished, instead of reacting as well-intentioned people acting more from emotion/fear drive the reform in unproductive directions.

You do realize that if someone is so pressed to commit an evil act they can find a way to either obtain a firearm or to perpetrate their evil through other means. Just because countries with strict gun control have low gun related violence does not mean they have low crime or murder rates.

The UK had 722 intentional murders including your 39 for firearms. I see that the US has close to 13,000 intentional murders that includes the 11,000 you referenced as well. The UNODC adjusting for population puts the US at 4.2 deaths per 100,000 and the UK at 1.2 per 100,00.

Do you realize that if this actually had to do with guns and not the culture, Britain would probably have an even lower rate, only 39 gun related deaths is amazing, but they still had 683 killings that had nothing to do with firearms.

The United States has a very aggressive culture, there are not many people I know who would argue with that. And I am not saying that is a bad thing, but it comes with many other secondary effects. In comparison the UK is a relaxed culture, they value people keeping their opinions to themselves and they love a good laugh (though it may be dry at times.) They look to get along, rather than change the status quo.

I’m sorry but guns are just not the issue here, the issue is the fact that we see people with no hope for life, and no will for the future finding a way to have their name remembered. The media blasts it from every corner, schools and governments make reactions that to me look more like muscle spasms than a reaction of the mind, and people at home are scared; fear breeds fear, and fear gives us legislation like the patriot act.

I don’t like that people like this Lanza fellow were able to obtain access to weapons and rain death on innocent people, but as it stands they were not his weapons, he stole them from his mother and shot her in cold blood as well.

Banning assault weapons does nothing to fix the problem. Increasing gun control (especially in states like Connecticut where you are already practically harassed when trying to buy a weapon) is almost impossible to do without a ban, and that is unconstitutional.

Without God it doesn’t matter how much you steal on Wall Street. All that matters is that you get yours here and get it now. After you die, it’s too late.

Without God it doesn’t matter that you break your marriage vows. All that matters is that you get yours here and get it now. After you die, it’s too late.

Without God it doesn’t matter that you make a living peddling porn. All that matters is that you get yours here and get it now. After you die, it’s too late.

Without God it doesn’t matter that you, an elected official, betray your country and your American constituency for political gain. All that matters is that you get yours here and get it now. After you die, it’s too late.

Ben, a good opening question. As stated before, a reaction to rare events makes for bad policy. “Black Swan” events–like a school shooting (despite the news, very rare events) or 9/11 are exceedingly rare.

Yet, with 9/11, we established a lot of bad policy that cost billions (or over a trillion, if you count the various wars over the last eleven years) in measures that are extremely dubious to prevent another such event. Likewise, to make all schools into armed camps and/or adopt draconian gun control laws to solely address school shootings is foolish and counter-productive.

Gun violence–or more important, violence of any kind, regardless of weapon–is a real issue, and resources should be spent on where it would have the most effect. Focusing on atrocities like school shootings will likely not address much more real threats, threats that will much more likely result in pain and death than other threats.

Very, very few Americans are victims of terrorism (nearly zero since 9/11); but many more are victims of drunk driving. Yet where is our focus?

Look, if the Second amendment allows me to own guns and many states allow to carry guns, why can’t I carry a gun in federal buildings? Or why can’t I carry a gun on a plane? Is not it a violation of my rights? I am just being bitterly sarcastic.

I see only one solution. If the technology allows it, why would not the gun makers make my gun unusable to others. A gun that nobody but me can use.

True to form Mr. Buchanan makes it up as he goes along. He can tell us what motivated Alan Lanza and what was going through his head in the course of the killing. The only thing the rest of us know is what was done and how it was done. Evidently Mr. Buchanan has a source that is only available to him. Will he share it with us

There are several possible explanations for Lanza’s behavior. Perhaps he had an acute psychotic break and was driven by an irresistable voice of God in his head. I don’t know and it seems likely we will never know. If we want to understand so that we can cope, the best we can do is to work carefully with the facts at hand. Mr. Buchanan’s superficial, ideological analysis is a profound disservice

I will point out this. Most of the mass shooters are male. Men are taught to be problem-solvers. Seeking out help in our society is a perceived sign of weakness for the male species. Hollywood doesn’t help, as too often the man is portrayed as a goof-up or a Bruce Willis type who literally outguns his opponents in any fight. We put the military on pedestals, not necessarily because of the freedoms they fight for, but to hear the stories of how they took down the enemy. My husband has had guns for most of our marriage…he simply doesn’t have a use for them anymore. Ironically, when he suspected someone in our backyard during the night hours, he armed himself with a baseball bat. Not his guns. Perhaps of the simple fact its harder to shoot in the dark (?).

As a mother, I do what I can to encourage my son to express his feelings. Of course, he loves professional wrestling and video games. I feel it is my duty to mentor him on what is and is not okay. (Such as, if your sister is crying, it is time to stop wrestling).

I think we are fighting a culture that worships violence and that has got to stop. It pains for me to say this because I am rather liberal in my thinking…but what we let our children see and do matters. Children model the adults. When the adults behave badly, the children do as well. I’m not saying Adam’s mother was a bad mother…I get the sense she was very protective, very involved. Perhaps a little embarrassed of the stigma of a mental illness being attached to her son. In my mind she was trying to help him, perhaps was at a loss as to how to go about it, and afraid to seek out professionals. The professionals she did seek out she did not have good relations with. Perhaps she was afraid they would have her son committed, a thought she could not bear. I am likely thinking too much into this, but there are these elements we need to consider. Unfortunately, it is also these things to consider we will never truly know.

Mr. Buchanan is a very smart man. He knows a lot about history and writes well on that subject. He’s way out of his area of expertise, though, when he opines on psychology and what motivates mass murderers. I suppose Mr. Buchanan felt compelled to write something about the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. Too bad he didn’t take a little longer to carefully think through his opinions before expressing them. If he has evidence to back up his hypothesis that Lanza killed to attract attention and become famous, he should share that with us. Absent that evidence, Buchanan’s expressed opinion wastes our time.

Love this article but in my honest opinion I don’t think the killer knew what he was doing. Satan took over Adam Lanza, it was an easy entry into his mind through the violent games he played. Behind every movie we see, every game we play or every song we sing there is either a good or bad influence behind it. We as parents should be able to discern the evil and keep it away from our children. He was still considered to be under the age of accountability according to the bible because of the fact that our brains are still developing until the age of 21. It is crucial that we get these young kids into bible study at church. A solid foundation in the teachings Jesus left us will help even the most mentally disabled person but it is up to us. Are we going to make that decision today while there is still time. I hope so.

You are right, 39 gun-related murders in UK would be about 240 adjusted for population size comparing to the US. I omitted this adjustment because either way the proportions are crass – 11.000 to 240 or 11.000 to 39 really makes no difference for my point.

Then there is the “criminals will find some way to kill their victims” adjustment that you and Amarus Cameron demand. Well, ok, I do not know how many people who got murdered with a gun would have been murdered with a knife or blunt instrument or poison instead. My best estimate: maybe 1.000 out of the 11.000. I would venture that in most gun-related murder cases other weapons would either

– be impractical
– require too much preparation (poison) / courage /physical abilities
– be not lethal enough quickly enough
– not give the killer the same kind of feelings of power or the idea his job is easy to motivate him in the first place

And related to the last point: I am sure many people, because they have access to guns, spend much more time thinking of ways of or situations in which to use them.

But in any case, 1.000 or 2.000 out of 11.000, it does not matter much. The difference is three times 9/11, every year, and think of how much money was spent on that and how many freedoms were taken away from you to prevent another such event.

Jeezus, its those godless people again. Now they are killing our children for glory and fame with no fear of the lord’s retribution. By golly, by gosh, by jeoshafash, we need to put the fear of god back into them there godless folk. Then again, we might consider the consequences of standing on freedom of speech as sufficient reasoning to allow, heck, encourage the development of socio-psycopaths with murderous and ever more realistic video games. Then again, we might consider the consequences of right wing cowardice to stand behind the pitiful gun fetish obsessed gun enthusiasts who spout fear of a UN conspiracy to take away their god given right to online gambleing, unlimited porn and magazines longer than their…Its okay Pat. They’ll all be in church on Sunday praying for the souls of our children. And that is bound to get more results than anything a republican congress might accomplish in addressing policy regulating one of their biggest sponsors.

Of the 11,000 killed each year by handguns the first question that needs to be asked is the first question asked by old-time Texas sheriffs when they arrived at a murder scene, “Did he need killin’?” But if 11,000 people killed each year is too many why not ban 4,000 lb machines that kill 40,000+ each year in America? Not to mention how much they pollute the environment. Gun ownership is part of our history and a Constitutional right. I don’t own a gun and don’t like them but if a responsible citizen wants one he or she should be allowed to have one. And if he or she has got the appropriate background he or she should be able to carry it concealed.

Yes, gun control does not address root causes and will not fix the problem. However, it will help.

But to reduce the root cause of these mass shootings to a “desire to be famous” is simply absurd. For one thing, it doesn’t make any sense: how can you enjoy being famous if you’re dead? You can’t. What is the use of being famous if you’re dead? There isn’t any.

Moreover, movie violence is far too superficial an explanation to be any sort of root cause.

There’s no doubt our society is sick. I say it’s from economic inequality and social injustice; you say it’s from lack of God.

Either way, we clearly need much better access to mental health services. Why not make all mental health services free and available to everyone at all times?

Americans are so infatuated with guns that they become oblivious to their killing power. If we want to ban Iran and North Korea from possessing nuclear weapons, with the same logic, we want to ban high power guns in the hands of ordinary citizens who have no business having them.

The fact that Adam Lanza used guns legally purchased by his mother illustrated the inadequasy of how we handled having guns in our homes — How did she allow his son to have access to her guns? Why did she need so many guns? If the guns were “hobbyist collection,” they were certainly deadly collection; so were they worth it? Should the background check include mental health of the purchaser, and their family members? Shouldn’t parents be forbiddened to let their mental ill kids handle guns?

This of course does not mean there are no other factors involved in these tragedies besides guns. As a society, we need to address all of them as best as we can. We don’t do nothing because something seem so overwhelmingly difficult.

The last thing we want to do is put the blame squarely on Adam’s “fantasy” for fame. How did Buchanan know this? It’s revolting that Buchanan should approach this tragedy as such, just so that gun industry and NRA can go blameless for their relentless pursuit of profit blind to the cost inflicted on the rest of us.

No offense, but as an atheist who believes that anyone’s time on earth is measured by the good they do, it strikes me that religion in the broader sense is more often the basis for aggression against the “others” who believe differently. All religions included–

A personal morality that prevents acts of hatred and violence may be the ideal of a sabbath sermon, but the greater immorality of the “we are good and they are bad (and need to be converted–or exterminated)” is, along with other forms of tribalism and greed, at the center of conflict around the world.

Ah. I question whether it is any strong measure of goodness, to pursue the “greater immorality,” so publicly. If the religious are unexceptionally deemed to be given over to the splitting of skulls and the practice of extermination, by those given by training to the splitting of sternums and the practice of auscultation, then the latter are certainly declaring a form of “we are good and they are bad.” According to the logic of good Dr. Besanceney, this makes the latter bad, and greatly so.

A religion which summarily declares that “anyone’s time on earth is measured by the good they do” is ignoring both motive and number (and not only of the grammarian kind). How much good should one do, in fact, before it is clear to all … whether of the mourning, or the indifferent … that one’s good exceeded the nanometer, when it comes to morality? A further difficulty is that we are all inclined to a projective splitting of holy-self from the outsider, or the feared or unknown other; or to rationalize ourselves as having done the necessary good which counts (in our heads), in the end … and that this “all” includes those who may be labeled as “greedy” or “tribalistic,” whether belonging to the A.M.A. or not.

I generally respect Pat’s views, but this is pure idiocy. How can anyone claim to know what was inside this killer’s head? Moreover, how could someone believe that this was the intentional act of a rational mind seeking fame? “Normal” people do not murder children in order to be remembered. The fact that no conscience told him not to do this suggests a fundamental dysfunction of mind. Indeed, the killer’s age, social history and excessive violence are all indicative of early-onset schizophrenia, not “evil” in some sense of intentionally choosing to harm others despite understanding the consequences and ethical implications. Both Jared Loughner and “The Joker” exhibited similar signs, including delusions, which inspired their own rampages. Anyone who denies that mental illness plays a role in these killings simply has no credibility to write about them. But perhaps Pat is blind to this because of his own delusions about an omniscent male sky-god who will judge us at some universe-ending mass trial and let the “good guys” live with him forever in his “eternal house.”

I see only one solution. If the technology allows it, why would not the gun makers make my gun unusable to others. A gun that nobody but me can use.

Alex, they are working on those technologies but they are not ready for prime-time and cannot be retrofitted to older guns. There is one with a ring that needs to be worn. If you are too far away from the gun it won’t work. There are keys that need to be inserted. The problem with mechanical blocks is they take time so might not be engaged. The problem with electronic ones is that the gun may be disabled when you need it due to shock or electronic interference.

– it doesnt really matter whether the root cause is a ‘dead soul’ or not. Here in Australia we have our fair share of dead souls too. But they don’t have guns lying around in easy reach – since a conservative prime minister, following a massacre of 35 people using assault weapons, pushed a ban on them. People still hunt, farmers still have the guns they need. We’re as free as you are, and we don’t have to go through this sort of horror every six months. We just watch you doing so on CNN and shake our heads. Oh we also watch the same violent movies. we watch Star Wars too, but we don’t have light sabres.

I’ve respected TAC for a long time as a truly free-thinking magazine. But this article is the most desperate piece of tendentious, question begging obfuscation. You’re either going to get smart about this, or you going to lose. At the moment you would seem to prefer the mass murder of children to any restrictions on yr ‘freedom’ – actually, a gun-filled society is the reverse of freedom, because no-one can let their guard drop – which seems evidence itself of a soul that’s pretty deadened.

Mr. Buchanan is 100% genuine and correct in his analysis of Godlessness in American modern culture!

Recently, in corporate meeting when I uttered — in a proper context that I am not writing here — “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, the other Board members laughed or chuckled at me implying that my attitude is totally outdated and I am not modern like them.

Because, current American president says that America is not a Christian country, rather a secular one!

The only solution to gun-related violence in America is hiring at least one retired military personnel in every vulnerable place, such as schools, and paid by Public Employees’ Union dues.

American government should abstain from dictating what a law-abiding citizen must do or not do.

I am a physician and as a part of my practice do medical evaluations of kids on our Adolescent Psych unit. There are no easy answers to this, but one thing strikes me. If Adam were on our unit we would NOT isolate him in a room with access to hours of unlimited violent video games. Instead we would have him out interacting with other patients and staff. By nature video games are much like music- they create powerful synapses in the brain. In the unstable mind these synapses are likley exponentially more powerful. So here we have a triangle leading to a perfect storm: an unstable mind strongly influenced by interaction with violent stimuli coupled with easy access of firearms. God help us all.

It is a common mistake of gun-control advocates to look solely at gun-related homicides when in fact we should be looking at the relation between gun-control and the total number of homicides. As criminologists Kates and Mauser point out in one Harvard study, gun-ownership shares a negative correlation with total homicides meaning that as gun-ownership increases in a society, total homicides decrease.

Are we more interested in preventing gun-related crime or are we interested in actually saving human lives? Because we can indeed decrease gun-related crime by imposing strict, nationwide gun bans. However, if we wish to reduce the actual death toll of violent crime then we must look for another avenue of attack. Banning guns is pointless when statistics clearly show that people will simply resort to alternative methods like strangling or stabbing, perhaps even at a higher rate.

As Kates and Mauser point out, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” In other words, a high rate of violence represents the natural progression of a culture of death. Therefore, our objective must be, not to restrict one particular deadly mechanism among many but, to eliminate that violent, godless culture. It is not the easy answer but, ultimately, it is the only solution.

We should FOCUS the debate on GUNS. “The Polluter pays” would be the best slogan to counter gun-crazed individuals without touching the 2d amendment. At the end of the day, when I choose to drive, I have to buy INSURANCE. Part of the premium goes to cover the cost of uninsured people who cause accidents. Same principle is valid for gun owners, who need to obtain a license and pay for the damages that they, as a collective cause, without changing the second amendment.